Posted on 05/27/2016 10:00:33 PM PDT by detective
Today, President Obama visited Hiroshima. It was the first time a sitting president has done so. Of course, we’ve entered another arena of liberal debate: were the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ethical/justified/moral? The answer is yes to all three. First, let’s delve into something a bit disconcerting, which is that an increasing number of Americans feel that the bombing was wrong (via WaPo):
In the first Gallup poll from 1945 just after the bombings, a huge 85 percent of Americans approved the bombings. However, figures from 2005 show a significant decline to 57 percent. Meanwhile, another poll conducted by the Detroit Free Press in the United States and Japan in 1991 found that 63 percent of Americans thought that the bombings were justified in a bid to end the war, while just 29 percent of Japanese did.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
How does just war theory work, when you're fighting an enemy who (a) doesn't give a hoot about just war theory, or even the Geneva convention; and (b) promises to turn every civilian old enough to walk into a combatant? (The Japanese were literally teaching children to put on explosive vests and roll under tanks to blow them up.)
Truman's decision was a difficult one. Having spent a billion dollars on the bomb (a decision to which he was not a party, remember), should he then send hundreds of thousands of American boys to their deaths in an invasion, and keep the bomb in his back pocket? How do you explain that to the parents of 500,000 or a million dead American boys?
I don't know the answers to these questions. Thomas Aquinas never fought the Japanese, or Al Qaeda (who also likes to turn civilians into combatants), for that matter.
One thing that some of the scientists at Los Alamos wanted to do was to invite Japanese military representatives to the Trinity test in New Mexico. But if the test is a success, and they still refuse to surrender, and refuse to evacuate potential target cities ... what then?
And recall that, even after the bombs were dropped, even after the Russians had entered the war, and even after it became clear that the Emperor could stay, there was almost a coup d'etat in Tokyo to prevent the surrender from taking place. A considerable faction of the Japanese military was truly demonic and insane.
What would you have done, in Truman's place?
The idea that dropping the A-bomb was good or bad is a bit esoteric.
I agree that it was necessary on several levels and the proper course of action at the time. The primary value was two-fold. First that it showed the Japanese that the US was willing to do whatever was necessary to get them to surrender unconditionally. Second it showed the Russians, that we had the ability to contain them as well.
I am tired of the second guessing of the use. You can’t un-ring that bell and I am not going to be guilt-tripped into disarming the US of nuclear weapons.
Totally agree. Being their personally one August for their annual celebration was profound. Little children ran up to us and wanted to talk and said, “Peace!”
They were okay with the bomb as their own troops were barbarians to their own. The bomb and our staying their to make sure change was established was the best thing they could have hoped for...and has remained it seems.
Also, Germans told us they were not angry for all the destruction as they also were being hurt by their own and wanted true peace.
Obama’s are like men of old who want war and no peace and he brings it where he talks and walks.
I had two uncles who fought in the Pacific. One in the navy and served at that time on the USS Missouri. The other in the Marines.
The one in the Marines said that they were told that when the time came, they were to be given envelopes to put all their personal effects..ALL OF THEM. And were to write their last letters back home. After Okinawa, they knew what was in store. When they found out that these bombs were dropped, they knew it was over and partied for days.
They both guessed that well over 200 thousand US service men and women would have been killed in a invasion of the main islands.
No, the people on this thread who are arguing morality are not dunces; they are fools, and the exact kind that Jesus warns us about.
What is the “law” (be it the “laws” of war or of... say ... adultery)? Slavish devotion to the law without consideration of the consequences is what is immoral. The law said a woman who slept with men who were not her legal first husband was guilty of adultery and should be stoned to death. But was that the most moral outcome? Was that His choice (the compassionate one)?
Fools who babble about “just” war, about the primacy of principle in the face of human suffering and concerns, miss the entire point of Christianity (which is why they are fools...). “Just” war is the war that ends the quickest with the least loss of life. Don’t waste your time on them. Pearls before swine...
So mass fire bombings of Tokyo and other cities and what we did to Dresden were just accidents and only targeted at military facilities? Man.. People are getting *DUMB* with time.
The atomic bombs were drops in the buckets compared to the conventional hellfire unleashed that were directly aimed at civilian targets in order to destroy enemy moral.
It’s amazing how stupid and ignorant people like you are.
I disagree with you on that one. Barky is not a moron. He is an intelligent America hating, muslin. He is also a god to the media, Democrats, and a majority of those who voted in 2008 and 2012. But he is no moron. He knows full well every thing he is doing and the expected result. In my opinion, he is a son of a bitch to the nth degree and there are no words that are vile enough or derogatory enough to describe him. The only ones that I despise, and despise is not a strong enough term to describe him and them are the traitorous bastards that put him in the White house.
“You are also ignoring the conventional bombings all summer that had reduced so many Japanese cities to rubble. Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s destruction were a small part of the total.”
You are right. Conventional bombing killed far more people than the atomic bombs did. The fire bombing of Tokyo probably contributed almost as much to the Japanese decision to surrender as dropping the atomic bomb did.
The Soviet Union never invaded Japan. They declared war on Japan a few days before the certain Japanese surrender in order to seize Manchuria, North Korea and other areas. Gen. Mac Arthur prevented them from occupying any part of Japan. Truman asking Stalin to join the war against Japan at Potsdam was one of the stupidest foreign policy decisions in American history.
The Japanese ethos in WWII did not consider any Japanese citizens “civilians”. Japanese women and children killed themselves rather than surrender. Japan also did not consider any of the people it conquered to be civilians. They regularly raped and massacred civilian women and killed civilian children.
In actuality, the decision in 1945 was between bombing and blockading Japan and invading Japan. Conventionally bombing and blockading Japan over a period of months or years would have caused millions of civilian casualties. Invasion would have caused many, many more. The Japanese military was suicidal. Leaving them in power would have created far more suffering and destruction.
In war people are killed. The U.S. did not start WWII. But America finished it.
The casualties and suffering would have been far greater under any other option.
Just war theory dates back to when people were fighting with swords and arrows. It applies no matter what the weapon is. If civilian areas of Tokyo and Dresden were specifically targeted (and I do not know that they were) yes, that would have been immoral. You cannot deliberately target civilians in war. Period. End of story.
During the Emperor's broadcast speech on August 15th, 1945, announcing the surrender to the Japanese people, he flatly admitted that the bombs caused Japan (meaning HIM) to surrender.
Your statement is false.
Christianity has for 2000 years debated the morality of war and the ways in which actions in war can be moral or immoral.
Now, we can discuss whether a particular action in a particular war meets those criteria or not. I would enjoy such a discussion about Hiroshima, as I have heard very good opinions either way and categorically don’t know whether it was moral or not. Some of the more intelligent posters on this thread are indeed having that discussion.
But to sit here and be told essentially that Christian morals don’t matter because we are in a brutal war and...hey...we just need to end it quick?
Are you listening to yourselves? Do you know what you are even saying?
Yes, collateral damage can be forzeen, but not intended and it must be lmited as much as possible.
The Japanese government started the war, but most if the citizens were inmocent.
“You are also ignoring the conventional bombings all summer that had reduced so many Japanese cities to rubble. Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s destruction were a small part of the total.”
If you look at the position of the U.S. and Japan in 1945 there was literally only one option that would not have resulted in the death of millions of civilians and military.
The Japanese ethos during WWII did not consider any Japanese citizens as civilians. Women and children were ordered to fight to the death. Many Japanese women and children committed suicide rather than surrender.
The Japanese also did not consider any of the people they conquered to be civilians. Women were raped and massacred. Children were regularly killed.
In 1945 the U.S had four options regarding Japan.
The worst was to leave the military dictatorship in power and leave the area. This would have resulted in another costly war in a few years.
The second worst was a large scale invasion of Japan. This would have resulted in at the very least .5 million American casualties and most likely many more. It would have resulted in millions of Japanese casualties. It would have resulted in fighting for probable 3 years minimum over mountainous and easy to defend islands against an enemy determined to fight to the death. It would have resulted in a Japan so decimated that it could have never recovered. It would have resulted in generations of Japanese living in abject poverty and squalor in a destroyed and conquered country.
The third option was blockade and conventional bombing. This would have resulted in the destruction of all Japanese cities and the deaths through bombing, disease and starvation of millions of Japanese. The war would probably have been extended for at least two years and would have ended through the eventual invasion of a starving country in ruins.
The fourth was dropping the atomic bomb. It ended the war quickly and caused the fewest casualties. It allowed Japan to prosper in the period after WWII.
Your idea that someone could have waved a magic wand and there would be peace with no casualties is completely unrealistic. There would have been massive civilian casualties no matter what was done. The atomic bomb was the best decision.
The hate America propaganda that attacks America winning WWII is based on lies and ignorance.
“Demanding unconditional surrender violates the principles of a Just War.
It is a basic principle of Christian morality that a desirable end cannot justify the commission of an evil act.
The very fact that all the justifications offered for the dropping of the bombs are invalid according to Western Christian morality—i.e., consequentialism—calls the decision into question.
“Conservatives” rail against “relativism” and “moral expediency,” and then offer nothing else to defend the A-bombings.”
If you look at the position of the U.S. and Japan in 1945 there was literally only one option that would not have resulted in the death of millions of civilians and military.
The Japanese ethos during WWII did not consider any Japanese citizens as civilians. Women and children were ordered to fight to the death. Many Japanese women and children committed suicide rather than surrender.
The Japanese also did not consider any of the people they conquered to be civilians. Women were raped and massacred. Children were regularly killed.
In 1945 the U.S had four options regarding Japan.
The worst was to leave the military dictatorship in power and leave the area. This would have resulted in another costly war in a few years.
The second worst was a large scale invasion of Japan. This would have resulted in at the very least .5 million American casualties and most likely many more. It would have resulted in millions of Japanese casualties. It would have resulted in fighting for probable 3 years minimum over mountainous and easy to defend islands against an enemy determined to fight to the death. It would have resulted in a Japan so decimated that it could have never recovered. It would have resulted in generations of Japanese living in abject poverty and squalor in a destroyed and conquered country.
The third option was blockade and conventional bombing. This would have resulted in the destruction of all Japanese cities and the deaths through bombing, disease and starvation of millions of Japanese. The war would probably have been extended for at least two years and would have ended through the eventual invasion of a starving country in ruins.
The fourth was dropping the atomic bomb. It ended the war quickly and caused the fewest casualties. It allowed Japan to prosper in the period after WWII.
Your idea that someone could have waved a magic wand and there would be peace with no casualties is completely unrealistic. There would have been massive civilian casualties no matter what was done. The atomic bomb was the best decision.
The hate America propaganda that attacks America winning WWII is based on lies and ignorance.
That is not my idea at all.
Believe me, I know the options were all bad ones. Atrocious ones, especially for the men in the Pacific who were gearing up to invade while the Imperial Government was telling people to defend the home islands with pitchforks.
All I am saying is you cannot justify a wartime action by saying it produced a good effect.
If you're going to defend Hiroshima I'm ok with that. Just show how it met the conditions of a just action in war (Hiroshima had a military installation, civilian areas were not deliberately targeted for destruction, we did not understand the exact power of the bomb, etc.).
What I won't tolerate, though, is the people here defending it with a moral relativist argument: "war is war", "we needed to win" etc.
Exactly, thank you.
You wish that Germany and Japan had won World 2, don’t you?
Oh and by the way, I can’t even stomach Obama’s America-hating blathering on this because leftists don’t give a flying flip about Christian morals either—except when it ratifies their own smug and arrogant anti-American pretensions. The fool will rail on about the wartime innocents killed and then come back home and cheer on the feeding of peacetime innocents to the slaughterhouse of Planned Parenthood.
I say what I am saying out of love of this country and wanting it to be good and virtuous.
It’s beyond disgusting that you would even say that.
No I don’t. I just have lived long enough to realize that even the good guys do bad things in war sometimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino#Destruction_of_the_abbey
A good thing not only that it shortened the war and on net saved many lives, American and Japanese, but we did it when we had a monopoly and there was no possibility of retaliation or escalation from any quarter. We showed those things can do for all the world to see and guaranteed they would not be used again at least up to now. Had we dropped them while other countries also had them the chances of a real nuclear exchange would have been much higher.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.